(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Har Nof
Rosh Kollel: Rav Mordecai Kornfeld

Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Zevachim, 28

ZEVACHIM 26-30 - Dedicated to the leaders and participants in the Dafyomi shiurim at the Young Israel of New Rochelle, by Andy & Nancy Neff


OPINIONS: The Mishnah discusses the types of thoughts that constitute a transgression of the prohibition of Pigul (having in mind a thought of "Chutz l'Zemano" or "Chutz l'Mekomo" while offering a Korban). One of these thoughts entails thinking about eating a k'Zayis of the "Or ha'Alyah," the hide of the animal's tail, either Chutz l'Zemano or Chutz l'Mekomo. The Gemara records three opinions regarding whether or not the "Or ha'Alyah" is considered like the Alyah, the tail, itself. With regard to what law is this question relevant?
(a) RASHI (DH k'Alyah Dami) explains that the question is relevant to the laws of Haktarah, burning the parts of the Korban on the Mizbe'ach. Just as the Alyah itself is supposed to be burned on the Mizbe'ach, so, too, perhaps the skin of the Alyah is supposed to be burned on the Mizbe'ach.

The Gemara asks that if the Or ha'Alyah is like the Alyah, then how can having a thought of *eating* the Or ha'Alyah in the wrong time or place be considered an invalidating thought of Chutz l'Zemano or Chutz l'Mekomo? The Rabanan maintain that only a wrongful thought about eating something that is normally eaten can invalidate the Korban as Pigul, and the skin of the tail is not normally eaten!

Shmuel answers that the Mishnah is following the view of Rebbi Eliezer who argues that even thinking about something which is burned on the Mizbe'ach (and not eaten) can create a problem of Pigul (see Gemara later on 35a, and Menachos 17a for the reasons behind the argument).

Rav Huna answers that, indeed, the Or ha'Alyah is *not* like the Alyah, and therefore thinking about eating it in the wrong time or place constitutes a Pigul-thought of Chutz l'Zemano or Chutz l'Mekomo even according to the Rabanan.

Rav Chisda answers that although the Or ha'Alyah *is* like the Alyah, the Mishnah is discussing the hide of the tail of a *goat*. The tail of a goat it not burned on the Mizbe'ach, and therefore thinking about eating it (or the Or ha'Alyah) constitutes Pigul.

(b) The TZON KODASHIM explains differently. He says that the question whether or not the Or ha'Alyah is like the Alyah pertains to a thought of Chutz l'Zemano or Chutz l'Mekomo. Even though Or ha'Alyah is considered like the tail itself with regard to the laws of Tum'as Basar, as the Gemara says when discussing the answer of Rav Chisda, it is not considered like the tail with regard to Chutz l'Zemano and Chutz l'Mekomo.

The MITZPEH EISAN and RASHASH challenge the explanation of the Tzon Kodashim (the Rashash calls his explanation a "Shegagah Gedolah"). All of the opinions in the Gemara are explaining the Mishnah, which says that Pigul occurs when one thinks about eating the Or ha'Alyah. If Rav Huna is explaining how the Mishnah can be understood even according to the Rabanan, then how can he say that the Or ha'Alyah cannot cause Pigul? The Mishnah itself says that it can!

The YAD BINYAMIN explains that this cannot be the intent of the Tzon Kodashim. He explains that the Tzon Kodashim understands the Gemara like Rashi (DH k'Alyah Dami). When the Tzon Kodashim writes that the Or ha'Alyah is not like the Alyah with regard to Pigul, he means that since the Or ha'Alyah is not burned like the tail itself, the Mishnah says that a thought about eating the Or ha'Alyah can cause Pigul.

The Tzon Kodashim uses this explanation to address a question. Why should the hide of the tail not be burned along with the tail? With regard to Tum'ah we find that the hide is considered an inseparable part of the tail! He answers that this applies only for the laws of Tum'ah, because the hide of the tail is soft and chewable, like meat, and thus it is considered like meat with regard to Tum'as Basar. In contrast, we do not say that the hide of the tail should be burned on the Mizbe'ach because it is meaty. The Tzon Kodashim learns that the verse (Bamidbar 18:8) mentioned in the Gemara, which is written with regard to the Kohen's eating of the meat of the Korban, also applies to the Mizbe'ach's "eating," or consumption, of the Korban. The verse teaches that the Mizbe'ach may consume only parts of the Korban that are fit for royalty. Accordingly, it is not logical that the hide of the tail is placed on the Mizbe'ach (since it is not fit for royalty), unless the Torah explicitly commands to do so (as it does with regard to a Korban Olah). The Mishnah -- which is discussing only the Korbanos that are partially eaten (see RASHI to 27b, DH Es ha'Zevach) -- does not consider the Or ha'Alyah to be something which is burned on the Mizbe'ach. Even though it is not burned because of the verse (Bamidbar 18:8), it is nevertheless considered food which can cause Pigul.

The Gemara here continues and says that Rav Chisda understands that the fact that the Or ha'Alyah causes Pigul despite the verse requiring that the meat be fit for royalty is the novel idea advanced by the Mishnah. Rav Huna agrees with this approach. (The Yad Binyamin acknowledges that to say that all of this is the intention of the Tzon Kodashim is slightly difficult.) (Y. Montrose)


OPINION: Rava derives the Halachos of Nosar, Chutz l'Zemano, and Chutz l'Mekomo from the verse, "If [the person offering the sacrifice plans] to eat it on the third day, [the sacrifice] will not be accepted. It is considered Pigul (putrid, rejected) and it will not be counted in his favor" (Vayikra 7:18). Rava learns from the words, "Lo Yeratzeh" ("it will not be accepted"), that the final status of Pigul of a Korban is determined after the Zerikah, the time at which the final atonement is attained in the case of a Korban that was offered properly.

What is the law in the case of one who had a Pigul-thought about his Korban before the Zerikah? Is the thought entirely ineffective, and the Korban is valid, or is the thought still able to invalidate the Korban, making it Pasul, but not Pigul? Although Rava is telling us that someone who eats from the Korban before Zerikah would not be punished with Kares, does Rava maintain that one who eats from the Korban before Zerikah receives Malkus? (See RAMBAM, Hilchos Pesulei ha'Mukdashin 18:3.)

(a) The MISHNEH L'MELECH (Hilchos Pesulei ha'Mukdashin 18:7) considers both possibilities. On one hand, the Gemara in Me'ilah (2a) says that one can transgress the prohibition of Me'ilah with a Korban that was slaughtered with thoughts of Chutz l'Zemano or Chutz l'Mekomo. The Gemara asks why the prohibition of Me'ilah still applies if the Korban is no longer valid for any purpose. The Gemara answers that the Korban is still valid for one purpose -- the Zerikah is needed to finalize the status of Pigul (see RASHI 2b, DH u'Meshani). This implies that the Korban is a valid Korban until the Zerikah, despite the thoughts the person had while slaughtering it. On the other hand, we find earlier in the Gemara (14a) that Rebbi Shimon -- who holds that a Korban which is not supposed to be offered on the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon cannot become Pigul -- agrees that the Chatas Penimis can become Pasul with such thoughts. Accordingly, perhaps everyone agrees that just because a Korban is not invalidated as Pigul does not mean that it is not yet Pasul; that is, it could very well be Pasul. The Mishneh l'Melech remains in doubt about this.

(b) The CHAZON ISH (end of Kodashim) says that a person who eats a Korban that became Pasul in this manner certainly receives Malkus. Just as a live animal which cannot be a Korban (such as a Ba'al Mum) does not need Zerikah to make people violate the prohibitions associated with it (see Temurah 6b), so, too, this Korban -- which has no valid future to it, so to speak -- is already considered Pesulei ha'Mukdashin. The Torah commands us to dispose of invalid Korbanos, both those which are alive and those which are dead. The Halachah stated by our Gemara only excludes the person who eats it from receiving Kares.

The ACHI'EZER (2:27) also says that the Korban is Pasul before Zerikah, and he proves this from the Gemara later (42b). The Gemara (42a) discusses the Beraisa in Menachos (16b) concerning the Pigul of Korbanos for which Zerikah is done in several places. Rebbi Meir says that having a thought which creates Pigul during one of these Zerikos invalidates the Korban as Pigul, and one who eats it is Chayav Kares. The Chachamim argue and say that the punishment of Kares applies only if the wrongful thought was present for all of the Zerikos. The Gemara (42b) questions the view of Rebbi Meir. Once the first Zerikah is performed with a wrongful intention that causes Pigul, the rest of the blood is like water and has no Halachic significance. We know from Rava's statement in our Gemara (28b) that the Korban becomes Pigul only at the end of the Zerikah. Is Rebbi Meir's ruling consistent with Rava's guidelines for Pigul? The Achi'ezer points out that the Gemara explicitly says that after the first Zerikah, the blood becomes *like water.* This indicates that the Korban is Pasul already, even before the conclusion of the Zerikah. If the Korban is still valid to some degree, then why does the Gemara call the blood "water?" This proves that the Gemara maintains that a Korban that becomes Pigul before Zerikah is still considered Pesulei ha'Mukdashin, and one who eats it is Chayav Malkus. (Y. Montrose)

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,